Survey of United States congressional candidates, 1976 [electronic resource].

Format
Data file
Language
English
Εdition
ICPSR ed.
Published/​Created
Ann Arbor, Mich. : Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], [197-?].
Description
Extent of collection: 1 data file + machine-readable documentation (text) + OSIRIS dictionary.

Details

Subject(s)
Series
Restrictions note
Use of these data is restricted to Princeton University students, faculty, and staff for non-commercial statistical analysis and research purposes only.
Summary note
This data collection contains the results of a survey of the candidates who ran for United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives in 1976. By surveying such candidates, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was attempting to collect systematically the views of those directly affected and regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) as it was amended in 1974 and 1976. Those amendments called for significant changes in the rules for campaign contributions and expenditures, restrictions on independent expenditures and in-kind contributions, and public disclosure of all federal campaign activity. The survey was conducted by Decision Making Information of Santa Ana, California, and Hart Research Commission in the first two months of 1976. In all, 850 respondents (candidates, campaign managers, and other campaign representatives) were interviewed by mail or in person. The survey questions focused on seven major topics: (1) actual characteristics of the campaigns and the candidates covered by the survey, (2) experiences during the 1976 election, (3) finances in 1976, (4) impact of the FECA on campaign organization, (5) the role played by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as an information source for, and regulator of, campaigns, (6) which items dealt with by the FECA were favored or opposed by candidates and campaign managers who participated in the 1976 election, and (7) the respondent's overall feelings about what should be done in the future.
Notes
  • Codebook available in print and electronic format.
  • Title from title screen (viewed on December 6, 2010).
Type of data
Extent of collection: 1 data file + machine-readable documentation (text) + OSIRIS dictionary.
Time and place of event
  • Date(s) of collection: 1976-01-14--1976-02-26.
  • Time period: 1976.
Geographic coverage
Geographic coverage: United States.
System details
  • Mode of access: World Wide Web.
  • Extent of processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Methodology note
  • Data source: personal interviews, and mailback questionnaires.
  • Sample: stratified random sampling was done. The 850 respondents represented an accurate cross-section of House and Senate candidates, chosen by random interval selection methods and stratified by several factors: Senate/House campaigns, primary/general campaigns, party affiliation, and geographic regions.
  • Universe: the 2,150 United States House of Representatives and United States Senate candidates in 1976 whose names appeared on a primary or general ballot. Those candidates who filed a statement with the FECA but failed to run in 1976, as well as those who failed in 1976 to complete reporting requirements for an office sought in preceding years (1974 or 1972) were eliminated from the universe.
Cite as
U.S. Federal Election Commission. SURVEY OF UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES, 1976 [Computer file]. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 197?.
Statement on language in description
Princeton University Library aims to describe library materials in a manner that is respectful to the individuals and communities who create, use, and are represented in the collections we manage. Read more...
Other views
Staff view

Supplementary Information